lol, Imagine going to a bitcoiner and being all "hey the mining difficulty should be easier for me because I wasn't here since the beginning - I should find blocks more often than you for the same hashrate".
Or... just let everyone be. Nobody's hurting from the small impact of these projects, and based on their total HP, there isn't going to be any damage to Hive for a very long time
How can you tell? It's hard to notice for sure, similar to if I were to downvote your posts and the rewards were to go to everyone else, they'd hardly notice that increase in their active posts either. a matter of fact is that these voter accounts are earning more rewards than people who've bought their stake or earned it or are putting in effort to look for content to curate for what, setting delegators on an autovote bot? Authors like you are consistently earning the same rewards from the same voters for what, posting content close to no one consumes?
Again, I'm not singling you out, I'm sure there's even worse cases out there, but this blatant selfvoting/votetrading through delegation accounts can't be defended, it's kind of ridiculous you're trying to to begin with.
Like I mentioned, compare the total HP of the existing old guard to the total HP of delegation accounts. The delegations accounts are a drop in the bucket in comparison. Old accounts upvoting each other depletes the supply far more than these delegation projects.
And I will tell you that I have had several people message me about my post in Discord. I don't think you realize that you actually intimidate people due to your threats of downvoting them. It's not as big of an impact for me, and I actually post content for the content, but for smaller users, a single downvote from you can wipe them out completely. What's their incentive to write against you?
And considering the old guard tends to earn $30 - $50 per post consistently, wiping out people who earn pennies, even if they're all from delegation projects, is a pretty cruel concept. This is very imbalanced, and I understand why people are scared of disagreeing.
Anyway, I think it would be best if agreed to disagree on this topic. While I have to be openminded because this may change in the future, for the time being, I still see these projects as beneficial. For now, I do plan to continue to use them in a manner that's beneficial to supporting newer users, particularly those who create great content. After all, isn't that we're aiming to do: support quality content?
You fail to mention the projects double-dipping just for autovoting, it's not all about the authors, for them it's quite easy to not be targeted, just undelegate from these braindead selfvoting schemes and you're fine. Now if you instead start vote-trading excessively that's another thing that's also against my books.
Curation isn't guaranteed, I know I'm not the best example to mention this cause I get a lot of autovotes but you don't see me voting them back or abusing the votes by posting daily like you are. Save it with the victim angle and how people are afraid of being asked to use the platform the way it's healthy and beneficial for more people.
I don't know what you mean about supporting new users, you have no voting power.
I'm not sure what you mean with the double-dipping ones. At any rate, like I said, I have no issues with the content these projects are voting upon. If I did, I would not support them.
And yes, it's important to acknowledge that you can intimidate people away from posting and commenting. Your earnings are easily 1000x that of newer users who can't afford to purchase stake in the platform the way you and I have. Your HP is also much higher than the average user's HP, and targeting them is a bit unfair when considering the scope of users on this platform. I would use downvotes only if I see blatant misuse such as plagiarism, illegal content, and spam, but I suppose our standards are different - that's ok. Intimidating users with your stake is not ok.
Again, there are different ways to support new users. The community accounts do have voting power, plus there's also HSBI, as well as other 2nd layer tokens which I sometimes give out. That 20k delegation I have going towards LGN - none of the tokens I earn from that right now are going to me. I send them out virtually every day. Same thing with neoxian, most of the tokens I earn from that delegation are not going to me. With Bro, I already sent most of tokens to the community accounts, and EDS is the only one that I'm actually keeping to myself for now. Even that's not intended to be a permanent voting fixture, if you read about their project. The delegation to leo.voter is only earning me LEO tokens because I think their efforts make it a worthy project; their onboarding method with Keystore is actually outstanding.
Anyway, I don't want to start defending every single delegation I have. These are my funds, and I think how I'm using them is appropriate because I trust these projects and their owners to use the delegation appropriately.
Let's just agree to disagree, ok?
No one's trying to intimidate or threaten newcomers you dunce,we literally onboard people and curate them for months until they can stand on their own. I agree that this discussion is pointless but I'm not just going to look away when I see curation being misused. I didn't do it when Koreans with 80m sp did it, when bid bots with 30m sp attempted to continue doing it and other various schemes and tricks we've seen spring up over time. At least some of the owners of these accounts I've talked to admitted to what they were doing rather than going out of their way to defend it or point me as some asshole just looking to cause drama or drive people away when I've been doing to complete opposite for almost a decade.
When you start resorting to name-calling, the conversation is finished. I've been respectful to you throughout all of our interactions, even when you (fine, unintentionally) painted me in a poor light, but I won't accept nor reciprocate rudeness. Goodbye.
I'm trying to point you to wrongdoing and you keep saying "let's agree to disagree" like we're having a discussion over pineapple on pizza. I'm trying to explain to you how you're taking away author rewards from the very same newcomers you pretend to care about by guaranteeing votes your way and encouraging projects to drive up delegations of greed that take even more rewards away that could've gone to potential new users or at least users deserving it more and putting in the effort and you're treating it as if it's just a fucking opinion.
Yes i like to use all spectrum of language to try and get a point across or when I feel people are being difficult on purpose and evading or looking for excuses to continue shitting on the very thing that makes this place special.
The conversation is over.